Methodology
TVSM-PF v2.0.2 · Updated May 19, 2026 · Published criteria · Versioned · Independent
Most prop-firm review sites are built backwards: scores are assigned after commercial negotiations, affiliate relationships determine which firms get coverage, and negative reviews are absent or buried. TVSM exists to fix that. Every score on this site is computed from publicly verifiable evidence before any commercial contact with the firm. If a score changes, the reason and source are documented in an append-only public changelog.
1. What a TVSM score is — and is not
A TVSM score is a risk tier, not a grade. It measures the gap between what a financial counterparty promises and what it reliably delivers, and the direction that gap is moving — trader exposure, not firm character.
For prop firms (TVSM-PF) the question it answers is concrete: “Will this firm pay me what I earned, and still exist to do it?” Every TVSM-PF variable traces back to that question.
TVSM 2.0 ships three frameworks over a shared spine: TVSM-PF (prop firms, 17 variables), TVSM-PL (platforms, 5 dimensions — documented at /methodology/platforms), and TVSM-BR (brokerages, 5 dimensions). This page documents TVSM-PF.
2. The scoring formula
Each of the 17 TVSM-PF variables is scored on a 1–10 integer scale. A firm scores at the highest level whose condition bundle is fully satisfied (AND-logic). Ladders are monotonic and single-axis: every rung scores the same observable; only the threshold moves.
Adjusted = Base + trajectory_adj (clamped −3..+3)
Final = Adjusted after hard caps (lowest cap wins)
TVSM-PF weights sum to 100, so the formula produces a 0–100 score directly. The trajectory adjustment is a deterministic event-delta engine — the severity-weighted sum of trailing-12-month event changes, normalized and clamped to ±3. Every published score surfaces its top 3–4 score-limiting predicates as named reason codes.
What we publish, and what we don’t. The criteria are public: every variable, every weight, the band boundaries, the cap classes, the evidence rules, and — on each firm page — the per-variable evidence trail with source links and verbatim extracts. What we deliberately do not publish are the exact rung thresholds inside each 1–10 ladder, cap trigger levels, and our detection heuristics. We are transparent about how we judge; we do not hand firms a manual for engineering their documents to sit exactly above a known trip-wire. Every published claim about a specific firm remains fully auditable through its cited sources.
3. Score bands
TVSM 2.0 uses risk-framed band labels. Boundaries are unchanged from v1.0.2.
| Score | Band | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 80–100 | Excellent | Above industry standard. Recommend without reservation for eligible traders. |
| 65–79 | Strong | Materially above median. Worth considering. Known limitations disclosed. |
| 50–64 | Adequate | Meets minimum acceptable standards. Meaningful trade-offs exist. |
| 35–49 | Caution | Below acceptable standard. Use only with full understanding of specific risks. |
| 0–34 | High Risk | Not recommended. Documented failures, instability, or unacceptable practices. |
Affiliate-link rule.Firms scoring below 50 receive no affiliate links. They carry a “Research Only” label. Public, permanent, non-negotiable. See the affiliate disclosure for the full firewall.
4. The six dimensions
How we score
TVSM-PF v2.0.217 evidence-scored variables across 6 weighted dimensions (100points total). Each dimension’s share of the composite:
- Payout Reliability32%
- Rule Fairness & Clarity24%
- Rules Stability10%
- Business Viability16%
- Platform & Execution8%
- Cost & Value10%
| # | Dimension | Weight | The question it answers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Payout Reliability | 32% | Do they pay traders fairly, on time, without hidden gates? |
| 2 | Rule Fairness & Clarity | 24% | Are rules clear, fair, and non-discretionary? |
| 3 | Rules Stability | 10% | How often do terms change, and do they change retroactively? |
| 4 | Business Viability | 16% | Is this firm a credible going concern? |
| 5 | Platform & Execution | 8% | Will the platform work, and is execution reliable under load? |
| 6 | Cost & Value | 10% | Is the effective price proportionate to the access? |
Dimension weights sum to 100%. No display normalization required. Market profiles (Futures / Forex / Equities / Multi-asset) may swap and reweight variables within this framework — see the source spec for profile detail.
5. All 17 variables
Each variable scores 1–10 on a monotonic predicate ladder. Hard caps named here override the computed composite when triggered — see section 6 for cap mechanics.
| # | Variable | Dimension | Weight | Hard Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | payout_split | Payout Reliability | 9% | Cap 1 — sub-minimum split |
| 1.2 | payout_cap | Payout Reliability | 8% | — |
| 1.3 | payout_speed | Payout Reliability | 7% | — |
| 1.4 | approval_friction | Payout Reliability | 8% | Cap 2 — retroactive enforcement |
| 2.1 | drawdown_model | Rule Fairness & Clarity | 9% | — |
| 2.2 | rule_clarity | Rule Fairness & Clarity | 6% | — |
| 2.3 | rule_consistency | Rule Fairness & Clarity | 5% | — |
| 2.4 | pricing_honesty | Rule Fairness & Clarity | 4% | — |
| 3.1 | tos_stability | Rules Stability | 6% | — |
| 3.2 | suspension_history | Rules Stability | 4% | Cap 3 — unresolved incident (time-boxed) |
| 4.1 | company_age | Business Viability | 5% | — |
| 4.2 | financial_transparency | Business Viability | 6% | — |
| 4.3 | verified_complaint_velocity | Business Viability | 5% | — |
| 5.1 | platform_quality | Platform & Execution | 4% | — |
| 5.2 | execution_reliability | Platform & Execution | 4% | — |
| 6.1 | effective_fee_ratio | Cost & Value | 6% | — |
| 6.2 | fee_refundable | Cost & Value | 4% | — |
6. Hard caps
Hard caps override the computed composite. Every applicable cap is evaluated; the lowest ceiling applies. Every cap applied must be visible on the firm page with which cap triggered, what the computed score would have been without it, and the specific evidence.
7. Evidence requirements
Every variable score must trace to a citation — preferably a primary source: the firm’s terms of service, official FAQ, a regulator filing, a verified payout proof, or a community thread with primary evidence (screenshots of dashboards, payout statements, email headers).
TVSM 2.0 uses a five-state evidence model: verified, limited, unknown, contradictory, and verification_pending. A variable that cannot be evidenced at the higher rungs of its ladder defaults to the catch-all level 1. Each citation includes the source URL, a verbatim source extract, and a verification date.
Primary regulatory sources. License and regulatory-status variables are verified against the public registers below. Individual firm pages cite the specific records used; these are the canonical registers the framework checks.
- NFA BASIC — US futures registration & disciplinary history
- CFTC — US derivatives regulator
- FCA Register — UK authorised-firm register
- SEC — US securities regulator & EDGAR filings
8. Freshness, trajectory, and effective pricing
Freshness and decay.Every variable has a freshness window specific to its dimension — payout-related variables decay fastest (a stale payout claim is a high-risk claim), regulatory and ownership variables decay more slowly. A variable that hasn’t been re-verified within its window drops to a lower confidence state, which can shift its score. The firm page shows the last verification date so the reader can see how fresh each spec is.
Trajectory. The trajectory adjustment captures direction, not level. It is a deterministic event-delta engine: each typed event (rule change, payout incident, ToS update, fee revision, payout-cap shift) is assigned a severity weight; the trailing-12-month sum is normalized and clamped to ±3. A firm with a strong base score that is trending sharply down can still publish at a score 3 points below its base — and the trajectory glyph (▲▲ / ▲ / ▬ / ▼ / ▼▼) is visible inline with the score so the direction is never hidden.
Dynamic effective pricing.The cost-and-value dimension scores the effective fee paid, not the headline price. Discount stacks, refundable resets, account-size optionality, and force-close-after-N constraints all feed into the effective fee ratio — so a 50%-off coupon stack that requires a re-evaluation after three payouts isn’t allowed to mask the true cost of access.
9. Independence firewall
Affiliate relationships never affect scores. Scores cannot be bought or influenced: no commercial relationship — including a scored firm’s own — can move a score. Firms we don’t editorially recommend do not receive affiliate links. This is stated publicly, in writing, and applies regardless of what commission rate is offered.
A 31/100 score is as important to publish as an 89/100 score. The negative scores are the trust signal that makes the positive scores meaningful. A site that only rates firms well is not a review site — it is an advertisement.
“Verified by firm” badge. Some profiles carry a small Verified by firmbadge in the header. It means the firm’s operator has reviewed the published facts on that page — specs, fees, payout terms, policies — and confirmed they are accurate. It is a provenance signal about the facts, not an endorsement of the score: a firm cannot move its own TVSM number, and the badge has no weight in the formula. A firm with a Caution-band score can be fact-verified; a firm we recommend may carry no badge at all. The two are independent by design.
10. Version history
Versioning is semantic and per-framework. Patch bumps (2.0 → 2.0.1) are predicate-rubric clarifications — no weight changes, no variable additions, no new caps. Minor bumps add variables or change evidence standards. Major bumps change dimension weights by > 3% in absolute terms or add a framework. On any version bump, every scored firm within that framework is fully recomputed and a score_history snapshot is recorded with the methodology-driven delta.
| Version | Date | Framework | Changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| v1.0 | April 2026 | TVSM-PF | Initial publication. 16 variables, 6 dimensions. |
| v1.0.2 | April–May 2026 | TVSM-PF | Refinements. Retired May 15, 2026 (D02). |
| TVSM 2.0 | May 17, 2026 | TVSM-PF · TVSM-PL · TVSM-BR | Three frameworks, one spine. 17-variable TVSM-PF rubric. Typed events + decay + trajectory. Dynamic effective pricing. Predicate rubrics. Reason codes. Risk-tier framing. Five-state evidence + source precedence. |
| v2.0.1 | May 18, 2026 | TVSM-PF | Predicate rubric clarifications from anchor calibration across `payout_cap`, `approval_friction`, and `drawdown_model` — tighter rules for laddered payout caps, payout-count-limited funded accounts, and conflicting drawdown bases. No weight changes. |
| v2.0.2· current | May 19, 2026 | TVSM-PF | Multi-account-type rule: where a firm sells multiple account types with different drawdown models at one price, scoring uses the firm’s standard / default account (the tier a typical new trader is routed to), recorded in the evidence trail. No weight changes. |
| TVSM-PL v1.0 | May 30, 2026 | TVSM-PL | Platform framework initial publication. 22 variables per subtype across 5 dimensions (30/22/20/12/16). Two subtypes: execution_platform + analysis_platform. Capability model. Four-tier hard-cap system (PL-Cap 1–4) with invariant suppression on silent-integrity disqualifier. Documented at /methodology/platforms. |
11. Standards & references
TVSM is our own framework, not a reproduction of any external standard — but its risk-tier orientation (measuring the gap between what a financial counterparty promises and what it reliably delivers) is deliberately consistent with established investor-protection principles. The conceptual grounding draws on, and can be cross-read against, the following independent standards bodies:
- IOSCO — the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation, the global baseline for the investor-protection and counterparty-disclosure concepts the Payout Integrity and Transparency dimensions test.
- CFA Institute — the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct, whose fair-dealing and full-and-fair-disclosure principles inform how we score pricing honesty and rule-change communication.
- ESMA Investor Corner — the European Securities and Markets Authority’s guidance on retail leveraged-product risk, relevant context for the leverage and drawdown variables.
These are corroborating standards, not the source of any individual score. Every score is computed from the firm’s own primary documents, cited inline on each firm page.
Questions about a specific firm’s score? Open any firm page — every variable, its evidence, and any caps applied are displayed inline. Unfamiliar with a term? See the Glossary for plain-English definitions. Score changes are logged on the public Changelog. To read why we built it this way, see About.